Realistically, it means the same thing as “Constitutional Interpretist”.
Why? It never has been up to now.
Sure it is. If I say someone is a “constitutional originalist”, that gives you as much an idea as to what his position on most issues will be as the term “progressive” does.
Is Murray a white nationalist? Based just on The Bell Curve I’d say no, he’s just a racist, and/or racialist (or a poor scientist). Unless he has other writings supporting a race-based national identity, then he’s not a white nationalist either.
I understand what he means, too, because I understand what his politics are, but it’s a term his dad more or less made up. He is opposed to individual liberties he doesn’t believe are granted by the Constitution; if anything, he’s better described as an anticonstitutionalist, because his views are at odds with the prevailing interpretation.
“White nationalist” implies belief in some type of separation. You can be completely bigoted and think whites are intellectually superior (or, in Richwine’s case, believe Asians and Jews are, and whites are okay) and not think other races should be excluded.
I only got halfway through his thesis, but I didn’t get a racist vibe from it. More like poorly thought out policy analysis.
Something that can mean anything effectively means nothing.
“Rogue Constitutionalist”, perhaps?
I don’t disagree, except to note that most political labels are made up and fuzzy to some degree. “Progressive” is similar, you’d only know what it means by knowing the politics of people who self-label as progressive, same with “socialist” or even “conservative”. We know what they mean because we know who uses them, not from the terms themselves.
I just read Richwine’s thesis. I would not call it white supremist because it says that Asians have higher IQ than whites. It also advocated treating immigration applicants as individuals and not as representatives for countries or races. I would not consider that rascist.
He argues that there is an intelligence difference between hispanics and whites, but the argument is empirical and not normative.
Or, put a better way: Never mind the labels, what matters is, neither is the sort to whom America should be listening WRT immigration policy.
:rolleyes: Yeah, I know. So does Philippe Rushton. He remains a white supremacist nevertheless. So does practically anyone who subscribes to practically any form of “Racial Realism.”
Can I ask you some questions about it? Does he discuss IQ as a predictor of success in terms of many SES factors? Does he discuss IQ as a predictor of success in terms of staying out of prison? My big two for success in life are having a job and staying out of prison. Does he discuss IQ scores relative to other members of a demographic and objective measures of success?
Does he provide any objective measurements indicating that a lack of integration and being poor are necessarily bad?
My main interest is the cutoff score so to speak for getting a job, being a decent person to your family and neighbors and, maybe, voting.
Like it or not libertarian small government ideology in the minds of the public is associated with consevative thought, Tea Partyism and the Republican Party and specifically on race and immigration issues.
This Heritage disgraceful report hurts libertarians politically just the same. Guilt by association may be unfair but it is the current reality.
You think the public believes that libertarians are anti-immigration, or for that matter that all conservatives are? There’s a substantial free-trade wing of the conservative base that strongly supports open borders.
Nobody can hear them above the noise of Teddy Cruz, et al.
Many Hispanics/Latinos/Tejanos are “conservative.” But they know that today’s Republican Conservatives are xenophobes & racists. They aren’t buying…
I think the real blockage for any Republican success with Hispanics will be the significant portion of the Republican base that is there because they understand that the Republicans are the party of racism (because they are). Any inroads they make in the Hispanics will result in a loss of their racist base. It is literally a no-win situation for the Republicans … and couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch.
He gives a whole long list of things that correlate with IQ. He discusses immigrants and both having a job and staying out of prison. Immigrants have a higher labor force participation rates and lower incarceration rates than natives but immigrant’s children have lower labor force participation rates and higher incarceration rates than natives.
He has a whole section on why not integrating is bad.
The conclusion of the paper can be illustrated like this. Imagine there are two people John and Bob who both live abroad. John is smarter than Bob and earns $2K a year to Bob’s $1K a year. If they moved to the US, John could earn $50K a year and Bob could earn $30K a year. If the goal of immigration is to benefit the US economy the most than it makes sense to choose John instead of Bob. Since it is impossible to test for earning potential it is best to test for IQ which is highly correlated with earning potential. Furthermore since IQ is highly heritable it is likely that John’s progeny will outearn Bob’s progeny, increasing the benefit to the US for choosing John over Bob.
I am somewhat amused at the speed and completeness with which this thread has devolved into parallel quibbles over the definition of White Supremacist, and Constitutionalist. But does anyone actually have an opinion on the OP concerning the affect this will have on Latinos view of the conservative think tanks and the conservative movement in general?
My feeling is that it won’t really have much of an effect on current opinions since it doesn’t tell Latinos anything they don’t already know, but its going to make it harder for those Republicans who are trying to turn this opinion around.
ETA: Oops posted too late. Several on topic posts got in before mine.
We’ll see how it all shakes out. Our system makes a two-party outcome almost inevitable; the Republicans will change as needed just as parties before them, Democrats included, have. A more socially-moderate direction for the Republicans is the one I’d bet on.
I don’t think it will have any measureable effect, for the same reason. It’s nothing new.
I do differ, as I did above, with the OP in stating that while it may have a tiny negative effect on the Republicans, it will have no effect on libertarians.
There is no evidence that Republicans are the party of racism. In 2002 they asked white people if they for laws against interracial marriages and Democrats were one half a percent more likely to answer yes. In 2008 they asked whites if they would vote for a black president and strong Democrats were 3.4% more likely to answer no than strong Republicans. cite
Republicans have always had a problem with Latino voters, (Dukakis got a higher percentage of the Latino vote than Obama did in 2008). In the 2008 exit polls Latinos favored a more active government over a less active government 71% to 29%. In the same exit poll 75% of Latino voters said they prefer a larger government even with higher taxes. Since the Democrat party is the party of higher taxes and big government, it makes sense that Latinos vote for that party.